Federal Student Loans
Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase Gao ID: GAO-11-470R May 25, 2011Although a postsecondary education is vitally important to many individuals and the nation's ability to compete globally, high college tuition rates are prompting concerns that it may remain an elusive goal for some. To help students finance their education, Congress recently raised the ceiling on the amount individual students can borrow under the federal Stafford Loan program (referred to in legislation as "loan limits"). Congress initially did so for first- and second-year undergraduate students as well as for graduate and professional students in academic year (AY) 2007-08, and subsequently for all qualified undergraduate students receiving unsubsidized Stafford loans in AY 2008-09. The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 directed GAO to assess the impact of these increases in the loan limits on tuition and other expenses and borrowing. Since information was available only on the first loan limit increase, we focused on the AY 2007-08 loan limit increase, framing our study with three key questions: (1) What are the patterns in prices and undergraduate enrollment at institutions of higher education since the AY 2007-08 loan limit increases took effect? (2) To what extent did undergraduate students borrow Stafford loans at their maximum levels in AY 2007-08? (3) What are the characteristics of students in AY 2007-08 who borrowed more than the prior loan limits?
In summary, we found that: (1) After the change to the Stafford loan limits beginning in AY 2007-08, the price and the numbers of undergraduate students enrolling in the nation's institutions of higher education increased at a rate generally consistent with prior years. This pattern was consistent across most institutional sectors. (2) In terms of students borrowing Stafford loans, between AY 2003-04 and AY 2007-08, there was a decline in the proportion of eligible borrowers who borrowed their maximum--an amount that varies based on students' financial and personal circumstances, but is ultimately statutorily capped. These declines in borrowing were largely driven by first- and second-year students. (3) A snapshot look at first- and second-year students in AY 2007-08 who borrowed more than they could have under the previous loan limits showed that they primarily attended college exclusively full-time, were dependent students, and were most commonly enrolled in public 4-year institutions. When we compared these borrowers to all other first- and second-year Stafford loan borrowers, we found similarities across many characteristics, with the exception of dependency status and institutional sector.
GAO-11-470R, Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-470R
entitled 'Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and
Federal Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase'
which was released on May 25, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-11-470R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 25, 2011:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and
Federal Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase:
Although a postsecondary education is vitally important to many
individuals and the nation's ability to compete globally, high college
tuition rates are prompting concerns that it may remain an elusive
goal for some. To help students finance their education, Congress
recently raised the ceiling on the amount individual students can
borrow under the federal Stafford Loan program (referred to in
legislation as "loan limits").[Footnote 1] Congress initially did so
for first-and second-year undergraduate students as well as for
graduate and professional students in academic year (AY) 2007-08,
[Footnote 2] and subsequently for all qualified undergraduate students
receiving unsubsidized Stafford loans in AY 2008-09.[Footnote 3] The
Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 directed GAO to
assess the impact of these increases in the loan limits on tuition and
other expenses and borrowing.[Footnote 4] Since information was
available only on the first loan limit increase, we focused on the AY
2007-08 loan limit increase, framing our study with three key
questions:
(1) What are the patterns in prices and undergraduate enrollment at
institutions of higher education since the AY 2007-08 loan limit
increases took effect?
(2) To what extent did undergraduate students borrow Stafford loans at
their maximum levels in AY 2007-08?
(3) What are the characteristics of students in AY 2007-08 who
borrowed more than the prior loan limits?
To determine patterns in college prices since the AY 2007-08 loan
limit increase, we analyzed data from two U.S. Department of Education
(Education) databases.[Footnote 5] We used three descriptors to study
postsecondary prices--tuition and required fees, total price of
attendance, and net price after grants. Using the Integrated Post-
Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), we analyzed the tuition and
required fees from AYs 1999-2000 through 2009-10 that institutions
charge. Tuition and fees data are weighted by undergraduate
enrollment. Using the data from the three most recent National
Postsecondary Student Aid Surveys (NPSAS) (AYs 1999-2000, 2003-04, and
2007-08), we analyzed two other descriptors of price:
* total price of attendance--what a typical student would pay for
tuition and required fees, books and supplies, room and board, and
other personal expenses, and:
* net price after grants--the total price of attendance minus all
grant aid received by a typical student.
To determine patterns in undergraduate student enrollment, we used
IPEDS to analyze enrollment trends from AYs 1999-2000 through 2009-10.
To determine the extent to which students were borrowing Stafford
loans at their maximum levels in AY 2007-08, we used NPSAS data. For
each loan type, we analyzed and compared the proportion of eligible
borrowers who received their maximum amount in AY 2007-08 and AY 2003-
04. To determine the characteristics of student borrowers in AY 2007-
08, we analyzed available NPSAS data on institutional characteristics
(geographic region and sector) and student characteristics (attendance
status, dependency status, and race and ethnicity). Since the most
recent NPSAS data available for our analysis is AY 2007-08, we were
not able to identify any patterns after this increase in the loan
limits.[Footnote 6]
We determined that IPEDS and NPSAS data are sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report by testing it for accuracy and
completeness, reviewing documentation about systems used to produce
the data, and interviewing agency officials. Throughout this report,
all data discussed from NPSAS are statistically significant at the 95
percent confidence interval unless otherwise noted. Further, unless
otherwise noted, all percentage estimates are within 5 percentage
points.
We supplemented these data with interviews with officials from seven
institutions of higher education that participate in federal financial
aid programs. We selected this nonprobability sample to reflect a
range of institutional sectors, regions, undergraduate enrollment
sizes, and admission selectivity levels. We interviewed
representatives from postsecondary education associations, experts,
and officials from Education. In addition, we reviewed reports and
other information relevant to these issues. We also reviewed relevant
federal laws. Overall, these analyses are descriptive and do not
necessarily indicate a linkage between increases in the loan limits
and changes in tuition or borrowing.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 through May 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions on our audit objectives.
In summary, we found that:
* After the change to the Stafford loan limits beginning in AY 2007-
08, the price and the numbers of undergraduate students enrolling in
the nation's institutions of higher education increased at a rate
generally consistent with prior years. This pattern was consistent
across most institutional sectors.
* In terms of students borrowing Stafford loans, between AY 2003-04
and AY 2007-08, there was a decline in the proportion of eligible
borrowers who borrowed their maximum--an amount that varies based on
students' financial and personal circumstances, but is ultimately
statutorily capped. These declines in borrowing were largely driven by
first-and second-year students.
* A snapshot look at first-and second-year students in AY 2007-08 who
borrowed more than they could have under the previous loan limits
showed that they primarily attended college exclusively full-time,
were dependent students, and were most commonly enrolled in public 4-
year institutions. When we compared these borrowers to all other first-
and second-year Stafford loan borrowers, we found similarities across
many characteristics, with the exception of dependency status and
institutional sector.
Background:
To help students pay for college, several forms of financial aid are
available through governmental, institutional, and private sources, as
shown in table 1.
Table 1: Major Aid Programs for Undergraduate Students, AYs 1999-2000,
2003-2004, and 2007-2008:
In billions of AY 2008-09 constant dollars:
Federal Stafford Loans;
1999-2000: $23.783 billion;
2003-2004: $30.745 billion;
2007-2008: $36.224 billion.
Federal Pell Grants;
1999-2000: $9.312 billion;
2003-2004: $14.881 billion;
2007-2008: $15.173 billion.
Federal PLUS Loans;
1999-2000: $4.244 billion;
2003-2004: $7.299 billion;
2007-2008: $7.955 billion.
Federal tax benefits;
1999-2000: $4.590 billion;
2003-2004: $5.550 billion;
2007-2008: $5.890 billion.
State grants;
1999-2000: $5.119 billion;
2003-2004: $6.841 billion;
2007-2008: $8.111 billion.
Institutional grants;
1999-2000: $14.240 billion;
2003-2004: $18.170 billion;
2007-2008: $22.160 billion.
Private loans;
1999-2000: $3.110 billion;
2003-2004: $7.580 billion;
2007-2008: $17.670 billion.
Source: College Board.
Note: Students generally do not need to repay grants while loans must
be repaid by the student or their family. Moreover, grant aid in
particular provides assistance to those whose incomes are lower, on
average, than is the case with tax preferences. For more information
on federal aid and tax preferences, see GAO-08-717T.
[End of table]
The Stafford Loan program is the largest source of federal financial
aid available to postsecondary students. In AY 2009-10, 35 percent of
undergraduate students participated in the program, which provided an
estimated $56.1 billion dollars to eligible students through
subsidized and unsubsidized loans.[Footnote 7] To qualify for a
subsidized loan, students must have a financial need as determined
under federal law. A student's financial aid need is determined by a
formula that subtracts a student's expected family contribution (EFC)
and certain other estimated financial assistance from their total
price of attendance.[Footnote 8] In contrast to subsidized loans,
students can borrow unsubsidized loans to pay for educational expenses
regardless of their financial need. Depending on their educational
expenses and level of financial need, a student may be eligible to
receive both subsidized and unsubsidized loans, which is generally
referred to as a combined loan.
The loan amount students can borrow is determined in part by their
total price of attendance and financial circumstances. As shown in
table 2, there is a statutory loan limit for Stafford loans that
varies by a student's academic class level and dependency status
(i.e., dependent or independent) and the type of loan.[Footnote 9] For
unsubsidized loans, for example, independent students have higher loan
limits than dependent students. Beginning with AY 2007-08, Congress
raised the annual loan limits for first-and second-year undergraduate
students.[Footnote 10] Statutory loan limits were increased again
beginning with AY 2008-09. For this subsequent increase beginning with
AY 2008-09, undergraduate students in all class levels could borrow an
additional $2,000 in unsubsidized or combined loans per year.
Table 2: Statutory Stafford Loan Limits before and after the Increase:
Comparison of AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08:
Annual loan limits for dependent students:
Class level: 1st-year;
Academic year: 2006-07;
Subsidized loan: $2,625;
Unsubsidized loan: $2,625;
Combined total: $2,625.
Class level: 1st-year;
Academic year: 2007-08;
Subsidized loan: $3,500;
Unsubsidized loan: $3,500;
Combined total: $3,500.
Class level: 2nd year;
Academic year: 2006-07;
Subsidized loan: $3,500;
Unsubsidized loan: $3,500;
Combined total: $3,500.
Class level: 2nd year;
Academic year: 2007-08;
Subsidized loan: $4,500;
Unsubsidized loan: $4,500;
Combined total: $4,500.
Annual loan limits for independent students:
Class level: 1st-year;
Academic year: 2006-07;
Subsidized loan: $2,625;
Unsubsidized loan: $6,625;
Combined total: $6,625.
Class level: 1st-year;
Academic year: 2007-08;
Subsidized loan: $3,500;
Unsubsidized loan: $7,500;
Combined total: $7,500.
Class level: 2nd year;
Academic year: 2006-07;
Subsidized loan: $3,500;
Unsubsidized loan: $7,500;
Combined total: $7,500.
Class level: 2nd year;
Academic year: 2007-08;
Subsidized loan: $4,500;
Unsubsidized loan: $8,500;
Combined total: $8,500.
Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws.
[End of table]
There have been some notable changes in the availability of financial
aid and in the economy since the AY 2007-08 loan limit increase.
Specifically, between AY 2007-08 and AY 2009-10, the maximum award
available from the Pell Grant Program rose and the Program's EFC
eligibility threshold also increased, according to Education
documents.[Footnote 11] In addition, according to a report published
by the State Higher Education Executive Officers, the recent economic
recession has reduced state revenue, resulting in an overall reduction
in states' support for higher education--the primary source of funding
for institutional operations. At the same time, the resulting credit
crisis had affected the availability of private student loans. As GAO
previously reported, many of the private lenders exited the market in
response to limited access to capital resulting from the credit
crisis, according to select lenders, researchers, and experts. Lenders
that continued their private student loans programs reportedly
tightened their lending practices.[Footnote 12] As these private loans
declined, there was a significant increase in the total dollar amount
of unsubsidized loans issued to students between AY 2007-08 and AY
2009-10.
Postsecondary Prices and Enrollment Patterns Changed Little after the
AY 2007-08 Increases to Stafford Loan Limits:
After the change to the Stafford loan limits took effect beginning in
AY 2007-08, the price at and the numbers of undergraduate students
enrolling in the nation's institutions of higher education generally
continued to increase. As shown in figure 1, the tuition and required
fees that most institutions charge undergraduate students generally
rose at an average annual rate of about 2 to nearly 5 percent from AY
1999-2000 through AY 2009-10.[Footnote 13] The one exception to this
pattern was at for-profit institutions, where the average annual rate
decreased by about 4 percent since AY 2007-08.
Figure 1: Tuition and Required Fees, AYs 1999-2000 to 2009-10, for
Full-time Undergraduate Students:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Tuition and fees (in AY 2008-09 constant dollars):
Academic year: 1999-2000;
Public 4-year (in-state): $4,170;
Public 2-year (in-state): $1,960;
Private non-profit 4-year: $18,950;
For profit 2-and 4-year: $11,492.
Academic year: 2000-2001;
Public 4-year (in-state): $4,211;
Public 2-year (in-state): $1,919;
Private non-profit 4-year: $19,021;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $13,024.
Academic year: 2001-2002;
Public 4-year (in-state): $4,398;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,136;
Private non-profit 4-year: $19,617;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $13,475.
Academic year: 2002-2003;
Public 4-year (in-state): $4,691;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,247;
Private non-profit 4-year: $20,206;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $13,944.
Academic year: 2003-2004;
Public 4-year (in-state): $5,174;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,477;
Private non-profit 4-year: $20,878;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,899.
Academic year: 2004-2005;
Public 4-year (in-state): $5,519;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,633;
Private non-profit 4-year: $21,376;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $15,100.
Academic year: 2005-2006;
Public 4-year (in-state): $5,663;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,620;
Private non-profit 4-year: $21,768;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,938.
Academic year: 2006-2007;
Public 4-year (in-state): $5,816;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,664;
Private non-profit 4-year: $22,503;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $15,352.
Academic year: 2007-2008;
Public 4-year (in-state): $5,888;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,650;
Private non-profit 4-year: $23,107;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $15,216.
Academic year: 2008-2009;
Public 4-year (in-state): $6,165;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,619;
Private non-profit 4-year: $24,075;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,578.
Academic year: 2009-2010;
Public 4-year (in-state): $6,459;
Public 2-year (in-state): $2,762;
Private non-profit 4-year: $24,746;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,130.
Average annual rate increase:
Public 4-year (in-state): 4.5%
Public 2-year (in-state): 3.5%;
Private non-profit 4-year: 3%;
For profit 2- and 4-year: $2%.
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
[End of figure]
While nearly all students are expected to pay tuition and required
fees (and thus this measure is easiest to compare across sectors),
this measure does not necessarily reflect the final cost that students
may incur since they do not include living and other expenses or
account for grant aid. When we analyzed two other measures of price--
total price of attendance and net price after grants--that consider
these other factors, we found that they both increased in the year
this loan limit took effect, following a recent pattern of increases.
(See figure 2.) According to Education data, between AY 2003-04 and AY
2007-08 the largest dollar increases occurred at for-profit
institutions, where total price of attendance increased by $6,054 and
net price after grant aid increased by $6,583. For both measures these
increases in AY 2007-08 were preceded by decreases in AY 2003-04. For
the other three sectors during this period, average total price of
attendance and net price after grants increased slightly more than in
the previous period. For example, at public 4-year institutions, the
average total price of attendance increased by $1,280 and net price
after grants increased by $928. The years chosen to measure increases
in average total price of attendance and net price after grants may
make a difference. Between AYs 1999-2000 and 2007-08, for example,
students attending nonprofit 4-year institutions experienced the
greatest increase among the four sectors.[Footnote 14]
Figure 2: Tuition and Fees, Total Price of Attendance, and Net Price
after Grants, AYs 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Dollars in AY 2008-09 dollars:
Public 2-year:
Academic year: 1999-2000;
Total price of attendance: $6,920;
Net price after grants: $6,160;
Tuition and fees: $1,040.
Academic year: 2003-2004;
Total price of attendance: $7,370;
Net price after grants: $6,210;
Tuition and fees: $1,340.
Academic year: 2007-2008 loan limit increases);
Total price of attendance: $7,500;
Net price after grants: $6,49o;
Tuition and fees: $1,290.
Public 4-year:
Academic year: 1999-2000;
Total price of attendance: $13,270;
Net price after grants: $11,300;
Tuition and fees: $4,160;
Academic year: 2003-2004;
Total price of attendance: $14,380;
Net price after grants: $11,910;
Tuition and fees: $5,000.
Academic year: 2007-2008 loan limit increases);
Total price of attendance: $15,660;
Net price after grants: $12,830;
Tuition and fees: $5,700.
For profit 2 and 4-year:
Academic year: 1999-2000;
Total price of attendance: $20,410;
Net price after grants: $18,250;
Tuition and fees: $9,400.
Academic year: 2003-2004;
Total price of attendance: $17,130;
Net price after grants: $14,260;
Tuition and fees: $8,500.
Academic year: 2007-2008 loan limit increases);
Total price of attendance: $23,180;
Net price after grants: $20,840;
Tuition and fees: $10,720.
Nonprofit 4-year:
Academic year: 1999-2000;
Total price of attendance: $25,180;
Net price after grants: $18,780;
Tuition and fees: $15,340.
Academic year: 2003-2004;
Total price of attendance: $26,500;
Net price after grants: $19,600;
Tuition and fees: $16,740.
Academic year: 2007-2008 loan limit increases);
Total price of attendance: $29,560;
Net price after grants: $621,690;
Tuition and fees: $18,890.
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
Note: The tuition and fees data from NPSAS displayed in this figure
are lower than the tuition and fees data from IPEDS that we previously
discuss because the NPSAS data includes part-time students whereas the
data from IPEDS displays data only for full-time undergraduates.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 2, while total price of attendance and net price
after grants increased across all sectors, there can be considerable
differences between these two measures of price. Grant aid, which
students generally do not need to repay, lowers a student's total
price of attendance and may influence the amount some students need to
borrow to pay for a postsecondary education. The average amount of
grant aid received by students varies by institutional sector:
students attending institutions with higher total prices of attendance
generally receive more grant aid on average. In AY 2007-08, for
example, students attending nonprofit 4-year and for-profit
institutions had the highest average total price of attendance
($29,561 and $23,182, respectively). However, average grant aid helped
to lower net price to an average of $21,688 for students at nonprofit
4-year institutions and $20,842 at for-profit institutions. Students
attending public 2-year institutions had the lowest average total
price of attendance ($7,495) and net price after grants ($6,487)
compared with undergraduates attending other institutions in other
sectors.
According to experts and administrators we interviewed at several
colleges, a number of factors influence increases in prices, such as
the cost of maintaining and operating facilities and providing
instruction (e.g., total compensation). Moreover, several officials at
public institutions said that to compensate for losses in revenue due
to state budget cuts, there were tuition increases. For example,
officials at one large public university system said that there were
tuition increases of 30 percent in AY 2003-04 and 35 percent in AY
2009-10. None of the administrators we spoke with cited the
availability of federal student aid, including increases in the loan
limits, as a factor in their rationale for raising prices.
As with prices, enrollments followed an upward trend. As shown in
figure 3, enrollment in institutions of higher education has been
rising for more than a decade, with total enrollment at about 17.5
million students in AY 2009-10.
Figure 3: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher
Education by Sector and Share of Students, AYs 1999-2000 to 2009-10
for Full-and Part-time Undergraduate Students:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph]
Number of students:
Academic year: 1999-2000;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.36 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.1 million;
Public 4-year: 4.76 million;
Public 2-year: 5.31 million;
Total: 12.5 million.
Academic year: 2000-2001;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.4 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.15 million;
Public 4-year: 4.84 million;
Public 2-year: 6.08 million;
Total: 13.5 million.
Academic year: 2001-2002;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.47 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.21 million;
Public 4-year: 4.99 million;
Public 2-year: 6 million;
Total: 13.7 million.
Academic year: 2002-2003;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.52 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.26 million;
Public 4-year: 5.16 million;
Public 2-year: 6.27 million;
Total: 14.2 million.
Academic year: 2003-2004;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.61 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.31 million;
Public 4-year: 5.31 million;
Public 2-year: 6.21 million;
Total: 14,4 million.
Academic year: 2004-2005;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.74 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.35 million;
Public 4-year: 5.41 million;
Public 2-year: 6.25 million;
Total: 14.9 million.
Academic year: 2005-2006;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.85 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.38 million;
Public 4-year: 5.51 million;
Public 2-year: 6.18 million;
Total: 14.9 million.
Academic year: 2006-2007;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 0.89 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.41 million;
Public 4-year: 5.62 million;
Public 2-year: 6.22 million;
Total: 15.1 million.
Academic year: 2007-2008 (loan limit increases);
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 1 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.48 million;
Public 4-year: 5.81 million;
Public 2-year: 6.33 million;
Total: 15.6 million.
Academic year: 2008-2009 (loan limit increases);
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 1.24 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.51 million;
Public 4-year: 5.95 million;
Public 2-year: 6.64 million;
Total: 16.3 million.
Academic year: 2009-2010;
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 1.59 million;
Nonprofit 4-year: 2.57 million;
Public 4-year: 6.28 million;
Public 2-year: 7.1 million;
Total: 17.5 million.
Increase:
For-profit 2 and 4-year: 9%;
Nonprofit 4-year: 15%;
Public 4-year: 36%;
Public 2-year: 40%.
Average tuition and fees for 2009-10:
For-profit 2 and 4-year: $14,130;
Nonprofit 4-year: $24,726;
Public 4-year: $6,459;
Public 2-year: $2,762.
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
[End of figure]
In the 3 academic years after the increase to the loan limit that took
effect beginning in AY 2007-08, enrollment rose by about 2 million
students (a 12 percent increase). While enrollment rose across all
institutional sectors, the rate of growth varied, according to
Education data. Two-year public institutions, the largest and the
least expensive among the four sectors, had the greatest increases in
overall student enrollment. Meanwhile, for-profit institutions had the
largest enrollment increases in percentage terms, but they represent a
relatively small segment of overall student enrollment. (See enclosure
I for information about student enrollment and sector growth rate.)
For these two sectors, several administrators and experts said that
the growth in enrollment is partly due to the economic recession,
which increased the number of students seeking career-oriented
programs offered in a flexible and convenient manner.
Proportions of Borrowers Taking Out Maximum Loan Amounts Declined
after Loan Limits Increase:
Between AY 2003-04 and AY 2007-08, there was a decline in the
proportion of eligible Stafford loan borrowers who borrowed their
maximum--an amount that varies based on their financial and personal
circumstances, but is ultimately statutorily capped.[Footnote 15] For
example, whereas a student with a lower total price of attendance or
greater financial resources might be eligible to borrow a maximum of
$600, another student with a higher total price of attendance or fewer
financial resources might be eligible to borrow $3,500--the statutory
limit for dependent first-year students in AY 2007-08. According to
Education data, declines in maximum borrowing occurred across all
three Stafford loan types, as shown in figure 4. For example, the
percentage of borrowers taking out their maximum in subsidized loans--
whereby the federal government pays the interest on the loan while the
student is in school--dropped from 60 to 53 percent.
Figure 4: Proportion of Eligible Borrowers Who Received Their Maximum
Amount in AY 2003-04 and AY 2007-08, by Stafford Loan Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percent of eligible borrowers:
Type of Stafford Loan: Combined;
Academic year 2003-2004: 67%;
Academic year 2007-2008: 60%.
Type of Stafford Loan: Subsidized;
Academic year 2003-2004: 60%;
Academic year 2007-2008: 53%.
Type of Stafford Loan: Unsubsidized;
Academic year 2003-2004: 30%;
Academic year 2007-2008: 23%.
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[End of figure]
These declines in borrowing were largely driven by first-and second-
year students, who made up the majority--about 60 percent--of all
borrowers. While borrowing by eligible first-year students fell by
less than 10 percentage points for each loan type, borrowing by second-
year students declined more sharply, ranging from a 12-point
percentage drop for unsubsidized loans to a 21-point percentage drop
for subsidized loans. In contrast, the proportions of third, fourth,
and fifth-year borrowers who took out the maximum amounts generally
showed little or no change. It is difficult to discern, with only 1
year of data available after this loan limit increase, whether this
decline is part of a longer term pattern as well as what factors
account for the drop. According to Education officials, a similar
decline occurred after the AY 1993-94 increase in loan limits, but
borrowing levels later increased. In addition, according to several
college administrators we spoke with, the increased availability of
grant aid for certain students from federal, state, or institutional
sources may have decreased the amount they were eligible to borrow in
AY 2007-08. For example, the Academic Competitiveness (AC) Grant
Program began awarding grants to certain low-income first-and second-
year students in AY 2006-07. The AC Grant Program will sunset at the
conclusion of AY 2010-11.[Footnote 16]
Students Borrowing above the Prior Loan Limits Generally Attended
Public 4-Year Institutions, Enrolled in School Full-Time, and Were
Dependent Students:
A snapshot look at first-and second-year students in AY 2007-08 who
borrowed at either (1) the new statutory limit or (2) less than the
new limit (but more than they could have under the previous loan
limits) showed that these two groups of borrowers shared similar key
characteristics.[Footnote 17] As shown in figure 5, for all loan
types, students who borrowed at the new statutory limits accounted for
the majority of those who borrowed more under the new loan limits.
Figure 5: First-and Second-Year Borrowers Who Received a Loan Amount
Greater than Prior Limits in AY 2007-08, by Loan Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Percentage of borrowers:
Type of Stafford loan: Combined;
Borrowed less than the new statutory limit, but more than the prior
limit: 19%;
Borrowed at the new statutory limit: 81%.
Type of Stafford loan: Subsidized;
Borrowed less than the new statutory limit, but more than the prior
limit: 26%;
Borrowed at the new statutory limit: 74%.
Type of Stafford loan: Unsubsidized;
Borrowed less than the new statutory limit, but more than the prior
limit: 30%;
Borrowed at the new statutory limit: 70%.
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[End of figure]
These two groups of borrowers were similar in that they primarily
attended college exclusively full-time and were dependent students.
[Footnote 18] Also, in general, these borrowers most commonly enrolled
in public 4-year institutions and attended institutions located in the
Southeast, Mid-East, and Great Lakes regions of the United States. Of
note, in AY 2007-08, nearly 40 percent of all students were enrolled
at public 4-year institutions; the majority of students attended
institutions located in these three regions.
When we compared the two groups of borrowers who received more than
the prior loan limit to all other first-and second-year Stafford loan
borrowers, we found similarities across many characteristics, with the
exception of dependency status and institutional sector (see table 3
for data on combined loans). For these categories, other first-and
second-year borrowers were largely independent students and attended
either public 2-year or for-profit institutions in greater percentages
than the students who borrowed more under the new loan limits.
Moreover, the relative sizes of these three borrowing populations
varied widely by loan type. For combined and subsidized loans, the
majority of students borrowed at the new statutory limit. In contrast,
for unsubsidized loans, the majority borrowed an amount less than the
prior loan limit. (See enclosure I for data on subsidized and
unsubsidized loans.)
Table 3: For Combined Loans, Characteristics of First-and Second-Year
Borrowers in AY 2007-08:
Total population;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 60%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 14%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 26%.
Attendance status: Exclusively full-time;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 73%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 76%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 52%.
Attendance status: Exclusively part-time;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 15%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 10%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 26%.
Attendance status: Mixed full-time and part-time;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 12%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 14%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 21%.
Dependency status: Dependent;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 66%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 78%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 27%.
Dependency status: Independent;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 34%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 22%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 73%.
Race/ethnicity[A]: White;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 62%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 68%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 60%[B].
Race/ethnicity[A]: Black/African American;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 21%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 15%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 23%[B].
Race/ethnicity[A]: Hispanic/Latino;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 11%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 10%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 9%[B].
Institutional sector: Public 4-year;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 34%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 43%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 17%.
Institutional sector: Public 2-year;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 17%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 23%[C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 39%[C].
Institutional sector: Nonprofit 4-year;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 23%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 21%[B,C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 9%.
Institutional sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year;
Percent of combined loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 26%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 13%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 35%[C].
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[A] The column percentages for race/ethnicity do not total to 100
percent, since several categories were not included since they each
accounted for 3 percent or less.
[B] For these data points, there is no statistical difference between
the percentages as viewed across the columns.
[C] For these data points, there is no statistical difference between
the percentages as viewed down the rows.
[End of table]
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this letter to Education for review and
comment. Education had no comments.
As agreed with your staffs, this letter satisfies the reporting
requirement specified in the mandate. We are sending copies of this
letter to the cognizant congressional committees and the Secretary of
Education. This letter also will be available on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staffs have any
questions, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Scottg@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors
to this report include Sherri Doughty, James Whitcomb, Kathryn O'Dea,
and Daniel Ramsey. In addition, John Mingus assisted with data
analysis and along with Patrick Dudley provided valuable
methodological assistance; James Bennett provided graphics assistance;
Susan Bernstein provided writing assistance; Alex Galuten and Sheila
McCoy provided legal support; and Jonathan McMurray verified our
findings.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
Enclosure (1):
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John P. Kline:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Additional Data on the Student Enrollment as well as
Characteristics of First-and Second-Year Borrowers in AY 2007-08:
Table 4: Student Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher
Education by Sector and by Change in Share of Overall Enrollment
between Academic Years 1999-2000 and 2009-10:
Sector: Public 4-year;
2007-08: 5,812,810;
2008-09: 5,951,734;
2009-2010: 6,284,176;
1999-2000 percent share of enrollment: 38%;
2009-10 percent share of enrollment: 36%.
Sector: Public 2-year;
2007-08: 6,325,103;
2008-09: 6,640,071;
2009-2010: 7,101,444;
1999-2000 percent share of enrollment: 42%;
2009-10 percent share of enrollment: 40%.
Sector: Nonprofit 4-year;
2007-08: 2,479,693;
2008-09: 2,507,250;
2009-2010: 2,566,597;
1999-2000 percent share of enrollment: 17%;
2009-10 percent share of enrollment: 15%.
Sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year;
2007-08: 995,021;
2008-09: 1,238,327;
2009-2010: 1,585,146;
1999-2000 percent share of enrollment: 3%;
2009-10 percent share of enrollment: 9%.
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
[End of table]
Table 5: Characteristics of First-and Second-Year Borrowers in AY 2007-
08, for Subsidized Loans:
Total population;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 55%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 19%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 26%.
Attendance status: Exclusively full-time;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 71%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 67%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 59%.
Attendance status: Exclusively part-time;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 16%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 19%[B,C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 21%[B,C].
Attendance status: Mixed full-time and part-time;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 13%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 14%[B,C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 20%[C].
Dependency status: Dependent;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 52%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 56%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 49%[C].
Dependency status: Independent;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 48%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 44%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 51%[C].
Race/ethnicity[A]: White;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 57%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 62%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 61%[B].
Race/ethnicity[A]: Black/African American;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 23%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 21%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 22%[B].
Race/ethnicity[A]: Hispanic/Latino;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 12%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 10%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 10%[B].
Institutional sector: Public 4-year;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 28%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 35%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 24%.
Institutional sector: Public 2-year;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 16%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 27%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 33%[C].
Institutional sector: Nonprofit 4-year;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 22%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 18%[C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 11%.
Institutional sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year;
Percent of subsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 34%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 20%[C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 32%[B,C].
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[A] The column percentages for race/ethnicity do not total to 100
percent, since several categories were not included since they each
accounted for 3 percent or less.
[B] For these data points, there is no statistical difference between
the percentages as viewed across the columns.
[C] For these data points, there is no statistical difference between
the percentages as viewed down the rows.
[End of table]
Table 6: Characteristics of First-and Second-Year Borrowers in AY 2007-
08, for Unsubsidized Loans:
Total population;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 25%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 11%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 64%.
Attendance status: Exclusively full-time;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 74%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 78%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 59%.
Attendance status: Exclusively part-time;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 16%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 9%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 24%.
Attendance status: Mixed full-time and part-time;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 10%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 13%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 17%.
Dependency status: Dependent;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 80%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 92%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 21%.
Dependency status: Independent;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 20%;
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 8%;
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 79%.
Race/ethnicity[A]: White;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 66%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 66%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 58%.
Race/ethnicity[A]: Black/African American;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 19%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 18%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 25%.
Race/ethnicity[A]: Hispanic/Latino;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 9%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 10%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 10%[B].
Institutional sector: Public 4-year;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 40%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 42%[B];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 18%.
Institutional sector: Public 2-year;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 17%[B];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 19%[B,C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 24%[B].
Institutional sector: Nonprofit 4-year;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 22%[B,C];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 21%[B,C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 11%.
Institutional sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year;
Percent of unsubsidized loan borrowers:
Borrowed at the new loan limit: 21%[B,C];
Borrowed less than new limit, but more than could have under prior
limit: 18%[B C];
Borrowed less than the previous limit: 48%.
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[A] The column percentages for race/ethnicity do not total to 100
percent, since several categories were not included since they each
accounted for 3 percent or less.
[B] For these data points, there is no statistical difference between
the percentages as viewed across the columns.
[C] For these data points, there is no statistical difference between
the percentages as viewed down the rows.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For purposes of this report, when we refer to "loan limits," we
mean annual loan limits, not aggregate limits.
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 8005, 120 Stat. 4, 158 (2006). According to
our analysis of Education documents, these increases were the first
changes to Stafford loan limits since AY 1993-94. For undergraduate
students, these limits reflect an increase of $875 or $1,000, with the
loan limits after the increase ranging from $3,500 to $8,500 depending
on a student's class level, dependency status, and whether the student
was receiving a subsidized or an unsubsidized loan.
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-227, § 2, 122 Stat. 740 (2008).
[4] Id. § 9, 122 Stat. 740, 748. As agreed with your staff, we did not
assess the increased loan limit's impact on private loan borrowing.
[5] Our scope includes analyses of patterns in tuition, enrollment,
and borrowing at institutions of higher education in the 50 states and
the District of Columbia that participate in Title IV federal
financial aid programs and that are degree-granting. Moreover, our
scope includes four major types of institutions: 2-year public, 4-year
public, 4-year nonprofit, as well as 2-year and 4-year for-profit. We
grouped 2-and 4-year for-profit institutions together because about
half of the institutions that classify themselves as 4-year award
mainly 2-year degrees. Given that we defined our population of
institutions of higher education as degree-granting, our analysis
excludes less than 2-year for profit institutions that award
certificates.
[6] For tuition and required fees as well as enrollment we use data
from IPEDS that allowed us to study the 3 years after this increase in
the loan limits (i.e., AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10).
[7] The federal government pays the interest on behalf of subsidized
loan borrowers while the student is in school. Unsubsidized loan
borrowers are responsible for all interest costs. Regardless of loan
type, borrowers must be either a U.S. citizen or eligible noncitizen,
and be enrolled at least half time in a degree or certificate program.
[8] The EFC represents the amount the applicant and the applicant's
family can reasonably be expected to contribute toward the applicant's
postsecondary education. Throughout this report, when we use the
phrase "total price of attendance" in the context of the legal
requirements for the Stafford Loan program, we use it to refer to
"cost of attendance" as that phrase is defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1087ll.
[9] Students who are 24 years of age or older are considered
independent. Younger students can be also classified as independent
under certain circumstances, such if they are married or are on active
military duty.
[10] Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 8005(b), 120 Stat. 4, 158 (2006).
[11] Pell Grants are need-based grants for undergraduate students who
are enrolled in a degree or certificate program.
[12] GAO, Higher Education: Factors Lenders Consider in Making Lending
Decisions for Private Education Loans, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-86R] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17,
2009).
[13] The averages for tuition and fees, total price of attendance, and
net price after grants are reported in AY 2008-09 constant dollars.
[14] The most recent NPSAS data for total price of attendance and net
price after grants are from AY 2007-08.
[15] Because student borrowing of Stafford loans is limited by their
financial need (for subsidized loans) or by their total price of
attendance (for subsidized and unsubsidized loans), some students'
maximum amount is the statutory limit, while for others, it is a
lesser amount. Of those who received their maximum amount in AY 2007-
08, 78 percent of combined borrowers, 83 percent of subsidized
borrowers, and 72 percent of unsubsidized borrowers borrowed an amount
equal to the statutory limits.
[16] For more information about the AC Grant Program, see GAO, Federal
Student Aid: Recent Changes to Eligibility Requirements and Additional
Efforts to Promote Awareness Could Increase Academic Competitiveness
and SMART Grant Participation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-343] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25,
2009).
[17] For example, for dependent first-year students, those who
borrowed less than the new limit specifically include students who
borrowed above the previous loan limit of $2,625, but less than the
new AY 2007-08 limit of $3,500.
[18] The AY 2007-08 increases in Stafford loan limits for
undergraduates were only applicable to students in their first-and
second-year. With the higher loan limits established in AY 2007-08,
certain students were able to borrow amounts greater than the previous
limits.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
